Yes. Applied economics are proof that you are wrong. Modern political theory are proof that you are wrong.
I'm not sure I can agree about modern political theory. The vast knowledge gained from reproducible experimentation makes a very good case for causality. In fact, countless theoretical breakthoroughs have been elucidated by experimentation. However, experimentation in political theory is severely limited in scope and predictive power. I'd bet my life on the valence of carbon based on atomic theory, but never on any prediction of a political theory, no matter how it was derived.
The tests take longer and it's harder to run them in parallel, but it's just a slower version of the same steps.
I think that is an argument that cannot be proven, as you could always fault the experiment or the time allowed. It's not that I think that political theory isn't important or worthwhile, but without demonstrable reproducibility, it's just fundamentally different to something like physics.
The track records of both of those fields suggest I am right. both of them are at the level of medieval blood letting. But they may be getting better . good article
I think this ordering illustrates my views. math physics chemistry biology ecology sociology/anthropology political science /economics phrenology astrology homeopathy Austrian school economics (notice history is not on the list because it is orthogonal to science. It is a valid and noble pursuit it just is impotent when it comes to causality.)
I think this ordering illustrates my views. math physics chemistry biology ecology sociology/anthropology political science /economics phrenology astrology homeopathy Austrian school economics (notice history is not on the list because it is orthogonal to science. It is a valid and noble pursuit it just has nothing to do with causality.)